tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post7723412484810493106..comments2024-03-18T18:19:19.002-07:00Comments on bylogos: Evolution and the Falljohn bylhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05766117392831032432noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-76071486493570984102009-11-24T14:16:02.357-08:002009-11-24T14:16:02.357-08:00Oops, major typo above; in the second-last paragra...Oops, major typo above; in the second-last paragraph, it should read <br /><br />"But suffice it to say that I think any form of evolution and common descent of man (theistic or atheistic) has deep philosophical contradictions."<br /><br />Sorry.<br /><br />- DSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-79242471225527361892009-11-24T13:14:23.001-08:002009-11-24T13:14:23.001-08:00Thanks for this article.
I also find deep philoso...Thanks for this article.<br /><br />I also find deep philosophical problems with the notion of evolution by natural selection of "pre-humans" (and where the line is drawn between human and pre-human is of course arbitrary, since there is a sequence of infinitesimal evolutionary steps between the two). <br /><br />In an evolutionary context, I see no way to define evil, and I thereby see no way to declare foreknowledge of a fall into sin. <br /><br />An example that comes to mind is Abel's murder at the hands of Cain (or is this account an "accommodation" to ancient mythology as well?). Assuming that humankind existed before the declaration of human sinfulness, and assuming that they evolved from non-human progenitors by natural selection, it follows that the actions of Cain that we now declare 'sinful' ( murder, covetousness ...) must have, at one time, simply been accepted practice by our ancestors, since we find no limitation of these in the evolutionary theories. Or should we suppose that from primordial soup to humanity there was some pure strain of living organisms that somehow satisfied the second half of the table of the Law?<br /><br />So then, to continue the train of thought, at one time the Creator God uses natural selection to procure a species which he then confines with moral laws that contradict the evolutionary processes from which they arose. This is fundamentally contradictory. <br /><br />If I had more time to explain this (not just in a blog comment) I think I could make it more clear. But suffice it to say that the biggest problems I see with any form of evolution and common descent of man (theistic or atheistic) has deep philosophical contradictions. <br /><br />It seems to me that people who uphold these views are either inconsistent (they apply/utilize moral concepts that are denied in their philosophical foundations) or are amoral. I hope most of them are inconsistent.<br /><br />- DSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-91339203290221654192009-11-21T20:26:31.187-08:002009-11-21T20:26:31.187-08:00Hi Stuart
Thanks for your comments. Have you publ...Hi Stuart<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. Have you published your paper anywhere?John Bylnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3772414331480635861.post-70993561796456281512009-11-21T06:38:43.383-08:002009-11-21T06:38:43.383-08:00Hi Dr. Byl,
I have always found the hardest thing...Hi Dr. Byl,<br /><br />I have always found the hardest thing to fit with evolution is the fall into sin. I have read Holmes Rolston III on this during my MA studies (I wrote a paper on his <i>theistic evolution</i>, and he posits that the Fall occured when human beings evolved a moral consciousness--the Fall happened when humanity reached an appropriate evolutionary development.<br /><br />I could never work it out myself. I don't know the science behind these things--I tackle it from theological and philosophical foundations. To assume evil and death before the Fall seems to deny much of God's good creation work.<br /><br />Thanks for your thoughts on these matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com